Lucky17's Yahoo! FBB H2H League: Trading picks/Playoff roster moves

[The Walker Wiggle]

So far, it appears that there's no momentum to allow additional playoff roster moves (unless, perhaps, of injury).  There does seem to be an early consensus for allowing the trade of the next year's draft picks on draft day.

As for the other topic at hand, I'd rather not allow the trade of next year's draft picks on draft day. This is a case, where system we have in place has been working well. What's the argument for?

[Roy H.]

So far, it appears that there's no momentum to allow additional playoff roster moves (unless, perhaps, of injury).  There does seem to be an early consensus for allowing the trade of the next year's draft picks on draft day.

As for the other topic at hand, I'd rather not allow the trade of next year's draft picks on draft day. This is a case, where system we have in place has been working well. What's the argument for?

For:  It's fairly arbitrary to not allow the following year's draft picks on draft day, but to allow them the day following the draft.  The rule doesn't really serve any purpose, rather than to restrict people from maximizing their trading assets during one of the biggest trading windows of the year.

Let's say there's a lotto team that ends up with the #3 pick in the draft.  That #3 pick might not be enough to land a star caliber player from a contender.  However, allow that GM to package that #3 pick with a pick next year, and all of a sudden they're potentially able to land a player who can help turn their team around quickly. 

Also, of course, it allows teams that have traded their #1 away to be active on draft day.  The last couple years, numerous GMs have essentially been non-participants in the draft, because they didn't have picks.  Having the following year's picks available would remedy that by allowing people to make speculative moves.

My thought is that if a GM is still in control of their team on draft day and actively wishes to make trades, then the risk of a Ted Stepian situation is essentially nil; what GM is going to actively participate in the draft, but then suddenly give up his team?  And again, I reiterate that current rules allow that same GM to trade his #1 pick the day after the draft; he's just not allowed to use it when it's actually useful to him.

[The Walker Wiggle]

You may not think cycling is a big deal (which is strange, since you've done it consistently the last several years)

I absolutely play the waiver wire aggressively and have been very up front about enjoying it. But it hardly rises to the level of match up changing "cycling." We're not taking a four game advantage from NBA starters. It wasn't an option for me last season, but would three to four games from Theo Ratliff or Zabian Dowdell have shifted the momentum my way? Don't make me post the final score, okay?   And anyway, managers are going to lose playoff match-ups because of games disparities regardless, no? Unless we go to a games played cap. Even that would have to be reset weekly in the postseason.

There's nothing "fun" about losing a playoff series because your opponent decided to bring in various scrubs to tilt a playoff series in his favor.  One roster move per week allows people to mitigate a situation where a player is benched or injured, while still preserving the integrity of the playoffs.

Is your argument really that our first two seasons weren't fun and that our playoffs lacked integrity?

[Lucky17]

So far, it appears that there's no momentum to allow additional playoff roster moves (unless, perhaps, of injury).  There does seem to be an early consensus for allowing the trade of the next year's draft picks on draft day.

As for the other topic at hand, I'd rather not allow the trade of next year's draft picks on draft day. This is a case, where system we have in place has been working well. What's the argument for?

For:  It's fairly arbitrary to not allow the following year's draft picks on draft day, but to allow them the day following the draft.  The rule doesn't really serve any purpose, rather than to restrict people from maximizing their trading assets during one of the biggest trading windows of the year.

Let's say there's a lotto team that ends up with the #3 pick in the draft.  That #3 pick might not be enough to land a star caliber player from a contender.  However, allow that GM to package that #3 pick with a pick next year, and all of a sudden they're potentially able to land a player who can help turn their team around quickly.  

Also, of course, it allows teams that have traded their #1 away to be active on draft day.  The last couple years, numerous GMs have essentially been non-participants in the draft, because they didn't have picks.  Having the following year's picks available would remedy that by allowing people to make speculative moves.

My thought is that if a GM is still in control of their team on draft day and actively wishes to make trades, then the risk of a Ted Stepian situation is essentially nil; what GM is going to actively participate in the draft, but then suddenly give up his team?  And again, I reiterate that current rules allow that same GM to trade his #1 pick the day after the draft; he's just not allowed to use it when it's actually useful to him.

Against (hypothetically): Hpantazo suffers through a difficult season, and due to the lottery, ends up with the #3 pick, instead of the #1. The remaining 1st rounders he's been banking on all end up in the bottom 3rd of the 1st round.

Banking on better odds next season, he keeps the #3 pick, and trades away the rights to his remaining 2012 1st rounders for 2013 1sts from whoever is willing to pay on draft day. His roster remains virtually the same for the 2013 season.

Is this good for the league?

The difference with post-draft day deals: the rest of the league's GMs have a chance to voice their concerns, or even veto, such deals. There's no chance for that given the pace of draft day.

[Roy H.]

Against (hypothetically): Hpantazo suffers through a difficult season, and due to the lottery, ends up with the #3 pick, instead of the #1. The remaining 1st rounders he's been banking on all end up in the bottom 3rd of the 1st round.

Banking on better odds next season, he keeps the #3 pick, and trades away the rights to his remaining 2012 1st rounders for 2013 1sts from whoever is willing to pay on draft day. His roster remains virtually the same for the 2013 season.

Is this good for the league?

I don't see why it wouldn't be.  HP, or another hypothetical manager, is being active in the league, and is managing his team with the long view in mind.  Trading a 2011 pick for a 2012 pick can be a smart strategy that results in a stronger league down the line.  

I guess this brings about a philosophical question, but who cares if HP's team sucks, so long as he's active and is trying to employ a strategy?  Why is it bad for the league even if he goes 0-20?  It's not giving any one team a competitive advantage; everyone is going to play that GM, so if the weekly matchup turns into a glorified bye week, so be it.

There are 8 to 10 managers who aren't really trying to "win now".  If it accelerates the rebuilding process of those teams to trade for future draft picks, I say good.

The difference with post-draft day deals: the rest of the league's GMs have a chance to voice their concerns, or even veto, such deals. There's no chance for that given the pace of draft day.

We've had this league for how many seasons?  Is this the fourth or the fifth year?  Thus far, there have been exactly zero vetoes, despite some very lopsided trades.  I don't see this as a particularly compelling reason. 

[The Walker Wiggle]

The rule doesn't really serve any purpose, rather than to restrict people from maximizing their trading assets during one of the biggest trading windows of the year.

That's what works for me, though. I guess I'd point out that it's the contenders that consistently deal away their first round picks. In fact, I believe all eight 2011 playoff teams dealt away their first round picks well before the draft. So my hope is that a draft day restriction makes it a little more difficult for the rich to get even richer. Particularly given that the draft is often our yearly 2-3 replacement managers first exposure to the league. And maybe it's working? If a number of managers would prefer not to wait one day for a shot at acquiring a rookie.

But if it's just the arbitrariness of allowing deals the following day that's a hang-up, we could also go the other direction and prevent the trade of next season's picks until the start of the season?

[Lucky17]

Removing the opportunity for league review does not seem like a smart idea to me, even though there's never been an actual veto.

[Roy H.]

The rule doesn't really serve any purpose, rather than to restrict people from maximizing their trading assets during one of the biggest trading windows of the year.

That's what works for me, though. I guess I'd point out that it's the contenders that consistently deal away their first round picks. In fact, I believe all eight 2011 playoff teams dealt away their first round picks well before the draft. So my hope is that a draft day restriction makes it a little more difficult for the rich to get even richer. Particularly given that the draft is often our yearly 2-3 replacement managers first exposure to the league. And maybe it's working? If a number of managers would prefer not to wait one day for a shot at acquiring a rookie.

But if it's just the arbitrariness of allowing deals the following day that's a hang-up, we could also go the other direction and prevent the trade of next season's picks until the start of the season?

The draft is one of the few days that almost all GMs will be online and checked in.  A lot of the GMs who currently aren't participating in the off-season trading frenzy were around for the draft.  Allowing a maximization of assets on draft day benefits the league.

Also, it's not just contenders who have an interest in trading draft picks.  The Drinkers had a pretty poor team last year.  However, they have smartly parlayed draft picks into legitimate rotation players.  Who knows, if they'd been allowed to shop this year's draft pick on draft day, perhaps they could have received an even greater return? 

There's just no good reason not to allow the trades in my mind.  I think that's why you're seeing 75% of the league vote in favor of it.  Anything that allows people more control over shaping their team in their own vision is a good thing.

[Roy H.]

Removing the opportunity for league review does not seem like a smart idea to me, even though there's never been an actual veto.

Then institute a Commissioner's veto, although I can't imagine many circumstances under which it would be used. 

[Lucky17]

Removing the opportunity for league review does not seem like a smart idea to me, even though there's never been an actual veto.

Then institute a Commissioner's veto, although I can't imagine many circumstances under which it would be used.  

I can say that there have been trades that I might have lobbied for a veto as a competing GM.

In my role as commissioner, I've consciously declined to comment on trades. I do not want veto power to reside in one person's hands, even mine.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Anything that allows people more control over shaping their team in their own vision is a good thing.

I'm not so sure, when we consistently lose 2-3 managers a year. We have some teams that a replacement manager might mistake for a serious reclamation project. Though, I admit, I'm hardly suited for the long game.

P.S. But the above doesn't apply to additional roster moves does it?

[Roy H.]

The GMs who will be helped the most by allowing the trading of draft picks are the league's middle class.  Let's say a team is perpetually somewhere between 6th and 10th place in the draft.  It's going to be hard to turn their team around, because they're not getting high draft picks, and probably don't have star players.  However, let's say that 10th place team uses its #1 and it's 2012 #1 to jump up to 5th in the draft, where it can potentially land a star player.  All of a sudden, they jumped from mediocrity to contender.

I don't know, I just think that giving people every possible resource to improve their teams is a good thing, and since there's a strict limit that you can't trade beyond 1 year out, I think it eliminates Stepian concerns.

[Roy H.]

Anything that allows people more control over shaping their team in their own vision is a good thing.

I'm not so sure, when we consistently lose 2-3 managers a year. We have some teams that a replacement manager might mistake for a serious reclamation project. Though, I admit, I'm hardly suited for the long game.

P.S. But the above doesn't apply to additional roster moves does it?

Regarding roster moves, I have no problem with completely eliminating the moves cap in the regular season.  However, the playoffs are a different animal, and the anti-cycling rule preserves the integrity of playoff matchups.

As for losing GMs, the ones we lose aren't the ones who are actively involved making trades throughout the year.  Rather, they're the ones who are consistently inactive.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Regarding roster moves, I have no problem with completely eliminating the moves cap in the regular season.  However, the playoffs are a different animal, and the anti-cycling rule preserves the integrity of playoff matchups.

Please see my early reply. Would you really say that our first two seasons weren't fun and lacked integrity?

As for losing GMs, the ones we lose aren't the ones who are actively involved making trades throughout the year. Rather, they're the ones who are consistently inactive.

Wdleehi was making trades up until the deadline last season. I gave up my Points League team this summer because I just don't relish the format.

[barefacedmonk]

I'm with Roy on this one...and according to the poll, 9 other GMs agree with him as well. I don't see the harm in allowing picks to be traded on the day of the draft. I want to be able to build my team the way I want...I shouldn't have to worry about what other GMs think of my moves. As a GM, I want the option to trade my picks to acquire what I feel will better my team. If trading a player, a first and next year's first gives me a chance to land a solid player, then I would want to be able to have that option.

And talking about Hpantazo's team...is rebuilding worse than mediocrity?